Jump to content

The dawn of the Iron Age


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326403797' post='2898240']
CIS couldn't move aid internally, because there was no longer any CIS. The alliance had disbanded at the beginning of the war and the members had to individually surrender under the terms that they couldn't join or form an alliance for 3 months. There was no CIS to rebuild.

Hampering an alliance through surrender terms is dependent on the degree. I'm not sure how you can argue there is no middle ground, Chefjoe. If I were to demand 40k tech from the Dark Templar's upper tier nations, it will harm them more than imposing an outside aid clause.

Or how's this? Let's say the 2 weeks no aid at all clause used in PB-NpO was imposed on someone else for 3 months, it would surely set them back a lot more.
[/quote]
Im not arguing that there are certainly ways to hamper an alliances growth further or more harmfully then what we have already mentioned(Aid restrictions), of course there are.

Also, saying that just because CIS did not have the desire or where withal to move tech internally makes those terms any worse is baloney, the 90 day restriction on a very active alliance like Valhalla whom could have moved a !@#$ton of aid into and out of that 90 period is far more harsh then imposing 90 days on someone far less active or driven and ready to disband anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 433
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1326404196' post='2898245']
Im not arguing that there are certainly ways to hamper an alliances growth further or more harmfully then what we have already mentioned(Aid restrictions), of course there are.

Also, saying that just because CIS did not have the desire or where withal to move tech internally makes those terms any worse is baloney, the 90 day restriction on a very active alliance like Valhalla whom could have moved a !@#$ton of aid into and out of that 90 period is far more harsh then imposing 90 days on someone far less active or driven and ready to disband anyhow.
[/quote]
And actually, if you use a number like 20k tech (for Umbrella given their high slot usage, 40k tech would be much better than outside aid restrictions for them) than I believe it would be better than outside aid restrictions, as that would severely limit our ability to tech deal given that DT only has seven internal sellers.

Edited by Penlugue Solaris
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326276248' post='2897340']
My desire to be recognised only comes from the efforts to knock me down. That is it. I didn't care to ever bring any of it up to anyone outside of Umbrella until that. When people can actually say that I've done nothing and think they're saying the truth or that I was a great bungler, I'm going to want to dispute it.
[/quote]

Psht, you've made repeated attempts to either bring me down or marginalize me and you don't see me giving a !@#$. Get over yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Archon' timestamp='1326422834' post='2898469']
Psht, you've made repeated attempts to either bring me down or marginalize me and you don't see me giving a !@#$. Get over yourself.
[/quote]

That's kind of because it's not even really targeted at you. I'm not really sure how you've been marginalized when I said it hurt us a lot that you weren't around and for the most part you don't give a !@#$ or have the time to do so, hence other people running MK's day to day operations. How many Artolias have you gone through by this point? Your own reputation is pretty much solid and you're basically the premier player in the history of this world regardless of whether or not anything I've said because for the most part, what I've said isn't even that bad about you.

You can't even be marginalized and I've always known that. The only person who can marginalize you is yourself.

[quote]Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit) - The one who rid this world of the tyranny that was the New Pacific Order, and brought his alliance to great heights is the one that is the most missed in this world. He has recently returned to us, but even still we miss him. Welcome back Archon, don't be a stranger, I don't think our hearts can bare it. [/quote]

Edited by Roquentin
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326262616' post='2897281']
Yes, but Gre wasn't really proactive in doing anything. They had taken forever to leave Q and didn't want to do a bloc after that. It was a constant question we had asked people in Gre, "when are you leaving Q?" since we wanted it to happen.

Basically, what happened with Karma was Archon was the first person to step up to the plate and write a speech and everyone was fine with him doing it. Actually, no, I think some complained after he did it.

MK hadn't really been really proactive on the political front in terms of coalition-building due to the previous war and had adopted a weird attitude of doing things like PIATing NPO. I would say Vanguard was the more proactive C&G alliance.
[/quote]
Archon also had a major role in the pre-war negotiations, and in manipulating them to end badly for NPO.

That being said MK's role before that point wasn't very big as you said because of where were coming from after the previous war. For most of the time between noCB and Karma we were under terms, paying reps for a lot of it, and still generally rebuilding. We weren't really ready for war in terms of rebuilding and warchests until shortly before Karma started. Much of gov at the time wasn't inclined to jump on the anti-NPO bandwagon and some pushed neutrality. Though I don't think that ever would have really flown, membership was very adamantly anti-NPO (I was one of them, the most consistently anti-NPO voice in high gov). Vanguard joining C&G also tipped the scales against the neutrality idea, along with our economic/military recovery.

PIATing NPO wasn't really such a pro-NPO move as it appeared. We knew it would make NPO look desperate, they effectively had to bribe us to accept it by cancelling the permanent anti-nuclear first strike terms on us from noCB. This was after membership overwhelmingly rejected a MDP. And in the end it allowed Archon the access that eventually enabled him to spin negotiations badly for NPO.


ETA: I also believe that the way we defied and damaged NPO in noCB played a modest part in leading to Karma.

Edited by Azaghul
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1326425638' post='2898506']
Archon also had a major role in the pre-war negotiations, and in manipulating them to end badly for NPO.

That being said MK's role before that point wasn't very big as you said because of where were coming from after the previous war. For most of the time between noCB and Karma we were under terms, paying reps for a lot of it, and still generally rebuilding. We weren't really ready for war in terms of rebuilding and warchests until shortly before Karma started. Much of gov at the time wasn't inclined to jump on the anti-NPO bandwagon and some pushed neutrality. Though I don't think that ever would have really flown, membership was very adamantly anti-NPO (I was one of them, the most consistently anti-NPO voice in high gov). Vanguard joining C&G also tipped the scales against the neutrality idea, along with our economic/military recovery.

PIATing NPO wasn't really such a pro-NPO move as it appeared. We knew it would make NPO look desperate, they effectively had to bribe us to accept it by cancelling the permanent anti-nuclear first strike terms on us from noCB. This was after membership overwhelmingly rejected a MDP. And in the end it allowed Archon the access that eventually enabled him to spin negotiations badly for NPO.
[/quote]

Agreed. The TORN thing was a good play. Though I'd say the TORN treaty was more crucial in the negotiations than the PIAT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussions on who made Karma possible is always interesting reading, however it is always inconclusive. There were so many people involved at so many levels, and without any one of them, the thing would not have worked, or not worked as well. One of the main people that made Karma the success it was, would be the Pacifican government. The fact that there was a large chunk of CN that was disaffected and angry diaspora from various broken homes and smashed aliances residing in up and coming alliances and constantly poisoning the well for Pacifica, went a long way in turning the tide.

Was a time when any move to get closer to an alliance would get shot down by membership because said alliance had ties to Pacifica. Was a time when governments had to routinely defend their then current ties with Pacifica. All because membership had a healthy contingent of vocal Pacifican jackboot victims. In that way, Pacifica was the biggest enabler of Karma. They ensured that there was enough resentment built up in the game that they either had a healthy supply of people roguing them or actively working to undermine them. The various people that took this and channelled it, do deserve the credit, but no where near the credit that needs to go to the one that generated the anger.

Of course, once the deed was done, lot of those people simply faded away. Their game won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1326444044' post='2898700']
Discussions on who made Karma possible is always interesting reading, however it is always inconclusive. There were so many people involved at so many levels, and without any one of them, the thing would not have worked, or not worked as well. One of the main people that made Karma the success it was, would be the Pacifican government. The fact that there was a large chunk of CN that was disaffected and angry diaspora from various broken homes and smashed aliances residing in up and coming alliances and constantly poisoning the well for Pacifica, went a long way in turning the tide.

Was a time when any move to get closer to an alliance would get shot down by membership because said alliance had ties to Pacifica. Was a time when governments had to routinely defend their then current ties with Pacifica. All because membership had a healthy contingent of vocal Pacifican jackboot victims. In that way, Pacifica was the biggest enabler of Karma. They ensured that there was enough resentment built up in the game that they either had a healthy supply of people roguing them or actively working to undermine them. The various people that took this and channelled it, do deserve the credit, but no where near the credit that needs to go to the one that generated the anger.

Of course, once the deed was done, lot of those people simply faded away. Their game won.
[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not giving credit to NPO for taking a beating in Karma because (paraphrase) they were so bad they required everyone else to hate them. They were just as bad the day prior to the Karma coalition beginning to be formed. The credit goes to the people that actually formed the counter coalition. Hey, let's credit Lex Luthor for Superman's good deeds too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1326444044' post='2898700']
[b]In that way, Pacifica was the biggest enabler of Karma.[/b]
[/quote]

Absolutely---not only in their behavior prior, but also in the fact that walked into a huge, flagrantly-obvious trap to start the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326475369' post='2898839']
Absolutely---not only in their behavior prior, but also in the fact that walked into a huge, flagrantly-obvious trap to start the war.
[/quote]

It's their own fault they declared during negotiations and pushed all the alliances on the fence off the fence.

Had they not done that (or had their side mounted any coherent defensive strategy) it might have made things a lot more interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326423205' post='2898474']
You can't even be marginalized and I've always known that. The only person who can marginalize you is yourself.
[/quote]

Just for the record I was being sarcastic in what I wrote after most missed... nothing against Archon but I'm pretty sure my heart would bare it if he never showed up again :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326481951' post='2898930']
It's their own fault they declared during negotiations and pushed all the alliances on the fence off the fence.

Had they not done that (or had their side mounted any coherent defensive strategy) it might have made things a lot more interesting
[/quote]
Yeah, and honestly, someone on their end was going to end up declaring a war anyway since we weren't going to go on the offensive at any point due to stuff like what Bob Janova was talking about. I don't really think it was a carefully planned trap or anything.

Well it was interesting until we had IRON fully sorted out and then the purple curbstomp happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326488642' post='2899014']
Yeah, and honestly, someone on their end was going to end up declaring a war anyway since we weren't going to go on the offensive at any point due to stuff like what Bob Janova was talking about. I don't really think it was a carefully planned trap or anything.

Well it was interesting until we had IRON fully sorted out and then the purple curbstomp happened.
[/quote]

It would also have been a lot more interesting had someone coordinated their side and had their nations do *something* offensively instead of "sit and take it" for the most part.

Not to mention the whole "coalition of cowards" thing absolutely KILLED any posible rallying cry or propaganda which could have inspired people to do the sorts of strategic, cause-the-most-damage actions required in any losing war.

edit - removed a word

Edited by enderland
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326481951' post='2898930']
It's their own fault they declared during negotiations and pushed all the alliances on the fence off the fence.

Had they not done that (or had their side mounted any coherent defensive strategy) it might have made things a lot more interesting
[/quote]
Once they had the numbers so stacked against them after pushing off all the fence sitters, there wasn't a lot they could have done. A coherent defensive strategy might have made things a little better but it couldn't have stopped it from being an overwhelming loss.

The war had an opportunity to be a long, drawn out affair between relatively even sides before that point.

Attacking a direct ally of a SF and C&G alliance plus VE wasn't the best move by them either. They would have been better served waiting for a CB against a more isolated alliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1326516692' post='2899254']
Attacking a direct ally of a SF and C&G alliance plus VE wasn't the best move by them either. They would have been better served waiting for a CB against a more isolated alliance.
[/quote]

It also would have behooved them to avoid infuriating TOP with literally the first thing they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1326472330' post='2898800']
Sorry, I'm not giving credit to NPO for taking a beating in Karma because (paraphrase) they were so bad they required everyone else to hate them. They were just as bad the day prior to the Karma coalition beginning to be formed. The credit goes to the people that actually formed the counter coalition. Hey, let's credit Lex Luthor for Superman's good deeds too.
[/quote]

NPO was the biggest enabler; it wasn't the man behind the curtain running the show. And in a world where the most selfless thing you can do in a non-conflict atmosphere is to send out as much aid as is possible every ten days, there needs to be something more to inspire stories worth talking about. NPO fit that bill.

If you want it phrased differently, you could say that NPO's worst enemy was its own power. That power, and the manner in which they used it, encouraged resistance over time until all that resistance snapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1326444044' post='2898700']
Discussions on who made Karma possible is always interesting reading, however it is always inconclusive. There were so many people involved at so many levels, and without any one of them, the thing would not have worked, or not worked as well. One of the main people that made Karma the success it was, would be the Pacifican government. The fact that there was a large chunk of CN that was disaffected and angry diaspora from various broken homes and smashed aliances residing in up and coming alliances and constantly poisoning the well for Pacifica, went a long way in turning the tide.

Was a time when any move to get closer to an alliance would get shot down by membership because said alliance had ties to Pacifica. Was a time when governments had to routinely defend their then current ties with Pacifica. All because membership had a healthy contingent of vocal Pacifican jackboot victims. In that way, Pacifica was the biggest enabler of Karma. They ensured that there was enough resentment built up in the game that they either had a healthy supply of people roguing them or actively working to undermine them. The various people that took this and channelled it, do deserve the credit, but no where near the credit that needs to go to the one that generated the anger.

Of course, once the deed was done, lot of those people simply faded away. Their game won.
[/quote]

Lets also give due credit to those who switched sides towards the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1326532973' post='2899336']
Lets also give due credit to those who switched sides towards the end.
[/quote]

Who did really? You knew for months about Sparta not liking Q. Van Hoo: "We count on Sparta." I agree they should have left earlier, but it was a worthless bloc in terms of actual relationships and the writing should have been on the wall. As soon as the WoTC was over, it lost all meaning. It becomes dumb to keep a bloc around when the forums are leaking and its the forum host themselves that are doing it.

I would have never expected people like LoSS to accept their eunuchization. That's just dumb. Why would people stick with you when they were only allied out of fear?
[quote]
20:42.24] Mary_the_Fantabulous If you only surrendered to VE
[20:42.58] Mary_the_Fantabulous Then the peace between us shouldn't exist
[20:43.00] Moo-Cows you either surrendered to The Initiative
[20:43.02] Moo-Cows or you didn't
[20:48.18] <Oberwoot> i was under the impression the surrender terms were to VE
[20:48.18] <Oberwoot> in the last sentence of their disbandment our terms were waived
[20:48.37]<Mary_the_Fantabulous> The surrender was signed off on by the Initiative. If we(WUT) hadn't signed off on them, then we'd still be in a state of war.
[20:48.37]<Oberwoot> we were at war with VE
[20:48.37] <Mary_the_Fantabulous> At the time, war with VE meant war with all of the Initiative.
[20:48.37] <Oberwoot> they didn't activate any of their treaties
[20:48.37] <Oberwoot> based on that it was us vs. VE


This means that we are still in a state of war with LOSS. Our jackbooted soldiers are ready to march on a moment's notice. However, in our infinite mercy, we will give LOSS 24 hours from update tonight to surrender to the rest of The Initiative. If they fail do do so, then the dogs of war will be unleashed again and we will wreak havoc upon their lands.

We apologize for any inconvenience our grievous error may have caused anyone, especially those Initiative alliances who were denied tech because of it. [/quote]

"Yes NPO we will fight by your side even though we were banished to Pink and had to stay there forever despite VE and GOONS going down."

I mean, OOC: There is a reason the other tribes sided with Cortes over the Mexica. Vlad and Wallachia would turn on whichever suzerain pissed them off the most. Better yet your name gives a perfect example. Why would the various states in the Mughal Empire stay loyal to the Shah? The Rajputs certainly didn't like paying tribute to anyone. The Marathas fought the British a few times to try to regain independence. So if you play the game like the Mexica or Mughals, that's what's going to happen.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326516975' post='2899255']
It also would have behooved them to avoid infuriating TOP with literally the first thing they did.
[/quote]
Not to mention Sparta and MHA. Those three alliances were all still part of Continuum and had to e-lawyer their way out of the Hegemony side, and had the other Continuum powers got their diplomacy right, those alliances could almost certainly have been convinced to at least stay out of the Karma side. TOP and MHA, after all, counted NPO as one of their oldest friends before then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326543806' post='2899358']
Not to mention Sparta and MHA. Those three alliances were all still part of Continuum and had to e-lawyer their way out of the Hegemony side, and had the other Continuum powers got their diplomacy right, those alliances could almost certainly have been convinced to at least stay out of the Karma side. TOP and MHA, after all, counted NPO as one of their oldest friends before then.
[/quote]

Wouldn't have counted and people in TOP said NPO was just a dead treaty at that point. For Sparta, I expected them to come on board if the targets were remotely connected. I mean, what did we try making several blocs for? MHA had the TAB guys who were anti-NPO in Tri at that point.

Voltron would have been rad.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...